From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jan  6 18:13:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA21632
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA21627
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA13443; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:04:26 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199701070204.TAA13443@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: utmp changes
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:04:25 -0700 (MST)
Cc: current@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19970103203948.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jan 3, 97 08:39:48 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> X11 should also move towards using the openpty(3)/forkpty(3)
> interface.  If it had done this earlier, the previous vulnerability
> where xterm didn't revoke(2) its pty first would not have existed.
> Also, if we later decide to provide a better pty allocation scheme
> (something like a pty master device), we only have to upgrade libutil
> accordingly.

Yes.

I, for one, would like to see a cloning pty device via devfs.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.